A matter of treason: is it really so hard to accept?

Kevin’s post earlier this week left me thinking about several things. I think it is an excellent piece about separating our sentiments today, from the sentiments of people from the past… and the complications that historians may find in being objective. I’d like to expand on this more later, in another post, but, for now, a quick thought…

How many descendants of Confederate soldiers say that their ancestors did not feel they were a party to treason, yet have no evidence to back this up? Did your ancestor(s) actually say that they didn’t think it was treason? For many descendants of Confederate soldiers, it is offensive to associate the very idea of treason with participation in the Confederacy, whether that be in the military, government, or as a civilian in the middle of it all. Yet, it is very likely that, like those of the Revolution, many Confederates knew darn well that what they were engaged in could be considered treason. It was a gamble. If you win, you are a patriot. If you lose, you could be deemed guilty of treason. If the Americans of the Revolution had hesitations because of the fact, and clearly discussed it even as they debated the Declaration of Independence, why is it so hard for some people today to acknowledge that their Confederate ancestors could have easily been aware of the same? Frankly, I find it no harder to accept than the label “rebel”as applied to Confederates. Honestly, the denial of treason (especially without support that one’s ancestor/s actually believed they were not engaged in a potentially treasonous endeavor) is more offensive as it suggests that one’s ancestors were oblivious to/ignorant of the potential consequences of their actions.

*Follow-up/addendum: To those who read this post and want to make an argument using postwar theory about how Confederates were not engaged in treason… don’t bother. My point in this post is to understand what they thought and said at that time. Don’t attempt to make arguments based on 1) “the sovereignty of states” as understood in 1781, 2) the “right” for people to abolish government and institute a new government as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, 3) the quote from Lincoln (1848) about the right to “shake off the existing government”, or 4) a weird and warped tie to the Hartford Convention of 1814. As I’ve pointed out in a response to a comment, there were many Southerners who identified secession with treason. Just as an example, many Virginians(**) were condemning thoughts of secession in the 1860 Presidential race, equating it with “treason” (most especially within the campaign for Constitutional Unionist John Bell). Some of these same people later sided with the Confederacy, after Lincoln’s call for troops. Since these very people recognized the act of secession as treason, arguments based on numbers 1-4 above are compromised in any efforts to suggest some generalization/blanket statement over all Southerners, or even those who eventually become affiliated with the Confederacy. Note also that I am not saying that ALL Southerners and ALL Confederates were of the same mindset as that exhibited by the Constitutional Unionists. To suggest that would be just as absurd as the suggestion that ALL Confederates were of the belief that they were serving/fighting for states’ rights or that they were all under the impression that they were not party to treason as “defined” under any or all of 1-4 above.

**From the Staunton Spectator…

October 23, 1860:

To break up the Government under these circumstances, simply because Lincoln should be elected, would be adding madness to treason.–The danger is in the Cotton States, and not in the North. The spirit of prohibition as represented by Lincoln will be impotent for mischief, but the spirit of disunion, as represented by Yancey and other extremists of the South may be potential for indescribable evils. The people should do all they can to elect the Union loving conservatives, Bell and Everett(***), for then there would be no danger of disunion and civil war.

October 30, 1860:
Calls for those who love the Union to defeat the forces of sectionalism and treason at the ballot box. Spectator believes that the masses do not want disunion, but still hold to party loyalties and thus divide their vote. Claims that to defeat sectionalists, the vote of the masses must be concentrated on the candidacy of John Bell.

November 13, 1860:

It is with deep pain that we announce the triumph of a Northern Sectional party. We have labored earnestly to prevent that result, and supported the only ticket which carried the flag around which all the conservative strength of the country could rally without sacrifice of principle. The ticket we supported bore aloft a national banner around which conservatives North and South should have rallied with the view of preventing the success of sectionalism North or South. Our efforts were unsuccessful, though applied in the right direction, and sectionalism has triumphed over nationality.–Though we are mortified at the success of the Black Republicans in the Presidential election, yet we are rejoiced to know that the elections for Congressmen have resulted in giving us a very safe and decided majority against the Republicans in Congress. The success of the Republicans in the Presidential election is but a barren victory, and its fruits, like the apples of the Dead Sea, will turn to ashes upon their lips. They will have the Executive, but no other branch of the Government, and will, consequently, be impotent for mischief–they will not have the power to do any harm, however much disposed they may be to do so. We have the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court in our favor, either one of which would of itself be a sufficient protection to our rights. As we have all three there can, by no possibility, be any danger that our rights can be violated. No law can reach the President for his signature without first having passed both Houses of Congress, and we know that as at present composed no bill violative of our rights can pass either House. So that we are perfectly safe. The President cannot even make an appointment without the consent of the Senate, so that we have nothing to dread in that respect. If we remain united we have nothing to fear from the Black Republicans, because, as before stated, we have both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court in our favor. The danger is in secession. If several of the Southern States secede, they will leave us in a minority in Congress, where we now have a safe majority. This may be the reason why some of the Southern States are in such a hurry to secede. They think that if they secede and leave us at the mercy of a Black Republican majority in Congress, that we will secede likewise. This is the way in which they expect to drag us into a like destiny with them. They will secede when we have a safe majority and there can be no danger, that we may be left in a minority where danger will threaten, in the confident belief that we will then secede and unite our fortunes with theirs. To secede when there can be no danger would be adding cowardice to treason. To give up when we have the game in our own hands would be cowardly, foolish and criminal. South Carolina, and other States disposed to secede, should remember that comity due to neighboring States should restrain them from taking action without consulting the wishes and interests of other States, particularly such as Virginia which is more deeply interested than all the Cotton States combined. As no man has a right to destroy even his own property when by so doing he will endanger that of his neighbor, so no State has the right to secede when that act will involve other States in the common ruin. Virginia has interests independent of the Cotton States, and she should take care of them in spite of the action of those States.

***Bell carried Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky in the 1860 Presidential vote, largely due to the fracture in the Democratic vote and the split of votes between Breckinridge and Douglas. Nonetheless, the returns show that there were a significant number of people in these three states – as well as Maryland, North Carolina, and Georgia – who understood part of Bell’s message… that secession equated to treason. See this map for an overview of the vote.

Thanks for the link. You make a number of important points. The more I think about it the more I am convinced that our aversion to talking about this is a function of the success of reconciliation by the turn of the twentieth century. We don’t want to turn our civil war into a question of treason for risk of having to address the tough questions.

What I find so curious is that in contrast to our difficulty Americans in the 1860s had no trouble defining the boundaries of loyal behavior. Yesterday I was reading about Georgia’s steps to define treason at the very beginning of the war.

I agree with you, Kevin. The discussion of treason in the aftermath of reconciliation, or even as part of the reconciliation process, was not welcome. It complicated the very effort to reconcile. Yet, it was certainly on their minds, and as I have pointed out before, there were many Union soldiers who welcomed reconciliation, but had problems with Confederate monuments and the return of Confederate flags.

I’d like to read Georgia’s steps in defining treason. Where did you find it?

Kevin, Have you seen the material from the Staunton newspapers in the Valley of the Shadow project? I found some material on how Bell supporters (interesting, because my Maryland people were deep into the Constitutional Unionist party) played heavily on the thought that secession equated to treason. Of course, then you have to look at how much support Bell received, carrying four Southern states, and making a good showing in several others. See the addendum to my post.

In addition, I would like to add that each and every SCV and UDC meeting starts with a seditious pledge to the Confederate flag and all that it represents. I have listened time and again to this pledge and find it fascinating that the members can, with complete aplomb, pledge the allegiance to the US Flag, to the State flag, and then to the Confederate flag. One wonders where then exactly to their allegiances hold?
And yes, numerous occasions during the war present themselves in regards to treason. Most prominent in NC is likely the hanging of some 22 or 23 men (the count remains uncertain) at Kinston NC by order of Pickett – men conscripted to Confederate service who then joined the local Union forces. As General Palmer in New Bern pointed out to General Pickett – who better to know a traitor than a man sworn to uphold the the Union flag but who turned and swore to uphold the Confederate one.

“I salute the Confederate flag, with affection, reverence, and undying devotion to the Cause for which it stands.”

… and that part in the salute to the Confederate flag… “and undying devotion to the Cause for which it stands” is much more complicated than I think most would care to acknowledge. Just what all does “undying devotion to the Cause for which it stands” (meaning, “the Cause” of the past, but speaking in the present tense) entail? I think it’s up for multiple interpretations, but I don’t think that one can so easily dismiss the history that’s behind it.

Good example on the Kinston hangings. I wasn’t aware of the comment from Gen. Palmer to Pickett; quite the comeback by Palmer.

So at the time the Civil War ended, was anyone tried and/or convicted of treason? My understanding is that they were not. It seemed like at the very least, the government officials and soldiers who went over to the Confederacy should have been tried. Was there some kind of wholesale pardon?

No. Nobody was tried for treason. It wasn’t in the interest of reconciliation, though there were certainly several who wanted to see some Confederate government and military officials taken to task. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. There were pardons issued for many Southerners engaged at different levels, but of course, Lee’s pardon didn’t come until the Ford administration (August 5, 1975).

I should add that my posting this and the post about David Hunter Strother in the same day was no accident. I think when we see other Southerners of that time (most certainly from 1860-61) seeing secession as treason, we need to consider the thoughts that weighed on the minds of a number of other Southerners, including those who eventually sided with the Confederacy. We have heard how Lee struggled with the decision, but Strother will offer a different perspective, as a Southerner who sided with Union, though he was offered an opportunity to go with the Confederacy. As one who is descended from Southern Unionists, I think you will enjoy it.

The fact is that you are the one who can’t handle the truth and have a very narrow-minded view of the Confederate soldier, and the CW era Southern mind altogether. As I indicated in my previous response to another comment, D.H. Strother had the ability, as one of the many among the over 300,000 (a conservative estimate, by the way) Southerners in blue (as well as the countless number of Southern civilians who were unconditional Unionists) who did see secession as treason. Since they saw it as such, the point is that it was on the minds of many Southerners who did end up in the Confederate forces, even among many of the volunteers. It was a gamble, they had to know that, and to deny this is an insult to the intelligence of the Southerners who lived through the ordeal. No matter what you think or would like to try and justify, using a series of postwar apologists explanations of why serving in the Confederate government or military was not treason, it’s much more complex than you would like to admit.

It’s clear you also cannot handle an intelligent, open-minded discussion of possibilities, and that is the reason why your first comment was deleted. Don’t bother making any further comments in this blog, because they won’t be approved.

Robert, the problem with applying the label “treason” is that the word has different connotations depending on the context, particularly time-frame.

There was noteworthy reluctance to use the word treason, in the contemporary writings. I think for good measure. The secessionists were looking at “treason” through that constitutional lens – “shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

While it is hard for us to look back and say so, in 1860 “rebellion” seemed somewhat separate from an act of “war.” (and again, think here of the legal aspects of that term, not so much the dictionary definition.) That said, I’d make a strong case that by July 1861 the “rebellion” had indeed become a “war.” In short, perhaps the secessionists transformed through a cycle being “patriotic” and driven to “rebellion” eventually becoming “traitorous” under something outside the Constitutional definition.

However, let me be clear. The rhetoric I speak of, from the secessionists, should not be taken as the “voice of the South,” as it has been for many reasons over time. Like you, I see some mixed messages from a clearly un-unified South, not all of those messages given proper weight in our analysis today.

So when asked how I can reconcile the act of secession with the attribute of being a loyal citizen, I respond with the question, “are you asking me to respond as a student of history or as a patriotic American citizen in the 21st Century?” My answer differs depending on the scope of the conversation. I argue the same scope-context need apply even to discussion of contemporary issues – i.e. Jane Fonda, the anti-war movement, etc.

“are you asking me to respond as a student of history or as a patriotic American citizen in the 21st Century?”

Excellent! … and from you, I can accept this because I know you have a balanced view of the situation, looking at the many different factors at hand (as you have pointed out). On the other hand, as we both know, there are those who want to use the postwar theories as to why it wasn’t treason, somehow protecting the “right” and “honor” of their ancestors. This blurs the history in the name of protecting heritage, and, of course, that often equates to sacrificing truth in history in the name of protecting the honor of ancestors.

I’m still curious about Kevin’s find regarding Ga. I wonder what measures some had to take, what different theories and so forth, to justify secession and see it, no longer, as treason. I’ve seen something from Thomas J. Michie that I want to investigate more. It appears that, in 1833, he saw secession as treason, and yet, in 1861, his viewpoint changed. I wonder what made him change.

From the perspective of Constitutional Law, the Nullification Crisis and the 1860 Secession were very much two different topics. We tend to read secession as one continual thread in Antibellum history, looking at it from a broader theme. But in terms of the technical details, secession was a proposed solution for many different issues confronting Southerners (and Northerners for good measure).

In 1833, South Carolinians proposed secession, if you allow me to be overly brief, in order to avoid application of a law. Arguably in 1860, South Carolinians opted for secession (arguably again) in order to fend off a perceived threat against the law. Specifically the 3/5ths compromise.

Now if that perceived threat were indeed valid or simply the product of active imaginations, I’d leave for another day. My point is that key southerners likely held different opinions over time regarding secession due to the issues for which it was a proposed solution. Secession itself was not the “goal” but rather the mechanism to achieve the desired end state.

Treason depends on what you believe about the Union Is it perpetual or temporal. IMO, because we entered into the Articles of Confederation and then dissolved that Government; so we could join the Union that the Union is indeed Temporal and as such each state is free to leave the Union as it entered based upon the vote of the people. If you believe like Jackson that it is permanent and eternal then what the South did is TEASON! I hold to a temporal view of the Union so what the south did is not Treason!

Mike, I’d disagree because of the context which I have set here, that being to come to an understanding of how they looked at things then. You say “treason depends on what you believe…”, but I have to ask, are you speaking in present tense or speaking in terms of “you” as being what they actually thought? You also interject an “in my opinion” and then tie it to your interpretation of what the Articles means to you now, not to them, then. I’ve given the example of Constitutional Unionists at that time, they recognizing secession as treason. Again, many of these same Southerners later supported the Confederacy, while others remained unconditional Unionists. If you want to cite some people from that time (1860-61) using the Articles or other instruments, then this should be expanded upon, in relation to bodies of people believing in the same at that time.

Mike, I don’t think it had anything to do with the “perpetual or temporal” interpretation. When the Constitution was adopted, it became the law of the land. The crime of treason is the only crime defined within the US Constitution. In other words, the framers felt it required very detailed, deliberate attention.

Why? Well to be honest, every man who was in the room was a traitor to his former country – England. So they had a reason to get it right! I would suggest anyone with a interest in the subject read that passage very carefully. Notice in the Constitution’s definition there is no mention of “loyalty” or other rather abstract concepts. Instead the crime is defined by specific, concrete actions.

Your premise that the Articles of Confederation trump the Constitution is frankly a blind alley. When the Constitution was ratified, it was a rejection of the original Articles. Citizens of the 13 original state voted to adopt the Constitution, as a rejection of the Confederation that had existed. If anything was “temporal,” in this regard, it was the Articles of Confederation.

I often see it claimed, regarding the Union, that States “entered based upon the vote of the people”. What is overlooked is that each act of entry included action by Congress and by other states. No state entered simply by its own action.

Sorry for not getting back to you. I came across the reference while reading Stephanie McCurry’s brand new study, “Confederate Reckoning”. This brief reference comes during McCurry’s discussion of the steps Georgia took to push through its secession vote and maintain the illusion of a united front by force if necessary. Here is the passage:

“The implied threat became explicit six days later when, as one of its first legal acts, the newly independent republic of Georgia wrote and passed a new treason statute that defined treason as, among other things, enduring allegiance to the Union. It carried the death penalty. By January 26, 1861, political dissent was a capital offense in Georgia.” (p. 59)

McCurry references Allen D. Candler’s “The Confederate Records of the State of Georgia” which you should be able to find on Google Books. I have not had a chance to go through it for the original language. Hope that helps.

Thanks, Kevin. Looks like something I need to read. That’s funny that they defined treason as enduring allegiance to the Union. They totally turned the tables on the meaning, as a matter of convenience.

That’s alright, Mike. You aren’t the only one who is reading this differently. The difference between those readers and you, however, is that you can be civil and open-minded about it and I appreciate that.

Just last night, I was reading (again) Henry T. Shanks’ The Secession Movement in Virginia. It’s not a contemporary work (1934), but an excellent read, and full of some great work in evaluating the complex situation as it unfolded in Virginia. Ever since reading it for the first time, I have felt it was impossible to put the story of secession into some neat and easy to understand package. It’s especially interesting how Virginia and South Carolina were in such a nasty exchange, not only of words, but policies when it came to the slave trade, during the time between 1860 and 61. Then too, Shanks is an excellent lead-in to what Dew addressed in Apostles of Disunion, about how the secessionists weaved a Web of fear and lies in order to gain support.

Something else of interest that I’m reading are the two different newspapers in Staunton. The one that I mentioned was much more moderate, and heavily supportive of the Bell campaign, while the other was a firebrand for secession. The paper supporting secession even went so far as to conveniently redefine treason and accuse the Republican party of it, well before Lincoln even got into office.

I came across this discussion while I was looking for information on the Kinston hangings. You all talked so long ago that you will probably never see this remark at all. Nonetheless. I think the poor people, especially, simply had other motives for what they did, besides loyalty or treason. One of my very distant ancestors, William Hardy Daugherty, seems to have enlisted in the Confederate Army as a substitute for his richer brother-in-law. I found a document that he was promised 200 acres of land for the substitution. Before very many months, however, he deserted the Confederacy and joined the Union army instead. Why? Was it because New Bern, the nearest town to where he’d grown up, had been under Federal control for most of the war? Was it because he thought the Union forces were winning, and he simply wanted to be able to live to enjoy that 200 acres? Was it that, as a poor man, he didn’t have any emotional investment in slavery? No record remains, no letter, no diary, that would give us that answer. So he was caught and hung within just 10 days of his capture–in the town where so many other Daughetys and Daughertys lived. His wife was probably so humiliated or so mistreated by the people in the community that she moved to a neighboring county, sent her only son to live with someone else for a time (perhaps for his own safety?), and told everyone that he had died. She never got that 200 acres, but lived on the dole of the Federal government and her daughters’ care for the rest of her life.

Thanks for commenting, Donna. I think more Southerners than we realize did what they did in order to survive, and at heart, they were more leave-aloners all the way around, not particularly caring to fight for either side… as going off to fight in any capacity compromised ability to take care of things at home. At heart, their interests were at the hearths, and in their specific communities. Sure, there were a lot of folks motivated to volunteer for various reasons, but I can never dismiss the thought that there were three conscription laws passed in order to sustain an army in the field.

I can’t say for sure why your cousin did what he did, but I have heard stories about abuse of the common soldier at the hands of officers on that front in NC, and that the men, when they went to the Union, were treated more like men. I think Richard, who runs the NC Unionists blog said something about this.